Welcome to the Lounge

The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.

I've given them a couple of tries now, thinking I might get used to it eventually. That hasn't happened yet.

It takes a long time before my eyes "snap in" and stop seeing two superimposed images, and then occasionally with a scene change, they snap right out again. Subtitles are just totally lost, not that I really need them anyway.. and if they do "the 3D gimmick" with suddenly putting an object right in front of the viewer, well that really doesn't work for me.
How is that going for you people? Am I just doing it wrong?

Remember these[^]? I never see anything in them. no matter how hard I try. It only works for me when I unintentionally look at it. The same for the direction of a rotating wireframe cube on a flat screen.

Don't try to tell the image processor between your ears how to do its work.

I prefer to go to an authorized cinema, with better equipments to enjoy the movie and not just watch the movie. To enjoy the 3D, also select the movie that demonstrates the 3D. Regular drama is not the way to go.

I am going Lahore this week, to watch Justice League in 3D in IMAX 3D. I tried different cinemas and personally it is the quality and encoding of the presenter that might piss you off, I watched Thor: Ragnarok at a non-IMAX and it was a pain most of the times.

Also, I am not sponsoring IMAX. Just making a point, that 3D can be really amazing if your cinema is good and the movie itself also has some 3D elements. If you try watching a normal movie in 3D, you will not enjoy it. But movies with extensive animations and composition can really make you feel the movie; Doctor Strange was one of such.

Avengers: Infinity Wars would be the next for me.

Edit:

Oh and I missed a point, you can also consider the VR Box, that has a good ability presenting you with the 3D movies entertainment. I have one of those at home and I love it. I use my own mobile to play the movie and the VR Box does the rest.

This one:

The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~

The way new movies have used 3D is much more organic than older films that used it as a gimmick. Now it is just a depth of field thing rather than "Woah! that Yo-yo came right at me!" or the spear from a spear gun flying at the viewer in Friday the 13th part 3D.

My problem is that they are dimmer, and my eyes don't handle low light levels as well as they used to. Then again, even my gf, 17 years younger, complains about 3D movies being hard to see because they're darker.

With very few exceptions with 3D movies, I've always felt like I was watching an image being projected on a flat pane of glass. Then further behind, there's another image being projected on another pane of glass, with nothing occupying the volume of empty space between them. Then add a few more layers like this to compose the entire scene. It all comes across to me as very artificial.

What I find to be exceptionally bad with 3D movies is when focus is set on a person in the middle of a scene, with another person closer to you from your perspective, as if you're watching over their shoulder, and the person that's the closest to you is blurred/out of focus. It's a great effect for 2D movies and directors use it to draw your eye to what you should be paying attention to, but this is completely unnatural for 3D ones.

These days--if I can buy a movie on Blu-ray, and the 3D version is also included in the same package for a few extra bucks (say, less than $10 in difference), I'll splurge for it - but if I have to choose between the two, I'll always pick the 2D version.

But I've actually had two different classmates in school that didn't have stereoscopic viewing.
One of them had some kind of bad connection in his brain. He could see either on his left side, OR his right side, unless he closed one eye. Then he could see both sides at the same time. He could switch mentally and instantly.

No, not a programming question, it's a question (observation) about programming.

Noticed so many newbies within hours of deciding to "learn c#" are out on the board asking "how do I do X in linq." Why is that?
Deciding to learn C# is useful, be it a first or second programming language and one can map a lot of that same skill onto other languages, even auto convert it. But they want to jump straight into linq which is too unique, doesn't convert well, doesn't map well, and if overused [at the expense of fully learning c#] can even limit application design choices.

Perhaps authors of c# books/tutorials should highlight the fact that although linq is useful:
it probably should be learned later, after one has some mastery of c#,
it should be used [as intended] to supplement c#, not replace it,
just because one line of linq can replace a few lines of c#, that doesn't always make it better, faster or smarter and can even reduce maintainability.

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephantAnonymous-The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuineWinston Churchill, 1944-I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.Me, all the time

I think they should learn GWBasic or BasicA first, then spend the next 10 years learning assembler, c, c++, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol. Maybe then they can ask a proper question in Q&A rather than "CODZ PLZ".

When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others.

That's pretty close to how I did it... Except for the time frame which is more like 30 years

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephantAnonymous-The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuineWinston Churchill, 1944-I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.Me, all the time

My first exposure to code was Basic on an Apple II.
10?"Hello
...
50 goto 10

Then when I found a C tutorial on a shareware CD, I couldn't figure out why GOTO was all the way in chapter 12! After all, I had no idea what a function was, and had it stuck in my mind that goto was needed for everything... Instead of reading from chapters 1-12, I just searched for Goto, and went from there.

(Small remote town, no internet at the time, as it wasn't much of a thing outside of universities yet)

The language that most closely matches "how computers think" is Assembly language and even that is an abstraction to allow us mortals to approximate thinking like a computer without having to program in machine code.

Back when computers had console switches & lights on them (to read out registers, and various other things internal to the computer) you could arguably say you could think like a computer if you could use these things fluently. Yes, there were actually people who could stand at the front console and program the darn things.

All of the higher level languages are further abstractions of machine code to bring it into a form that we can more easily express our thoughts in.